The execution of the Ceausescus

I find myself watching the eerie trial and execution of Nicolae Ceausescu and his wife. What purpose did it serve to execute the Ceausescus? Similarly, Ceasescu presented himself as a nationalist and populist at the beginning of his reign. Similarly, Saddam Hussein and Muammar Gaddafi have presented themselves as nationalists, though on different scales and in different ways. Both were executed by the people of their respective countries, though with foreign support. Do you believe that rulers who present themselves on such lines doom themselves to execution upon being overthrown or is it insignificant?

We have beaten you to the moon, but you have beaten us in sausage making.- Nikita Khrushchev

The point of executing the Ceausescus in the eyes of the National Salvation Front was that it would end the violence occurring between the military, Securitate and the protestors. Of course it was illegal and the trial was a farce (bullshit charges like genocide against the Romanian people), but it may have served its intended purpose, though it is unknown. The trial of Saddam Hussein was similarly a Frag, but it lasted a very long time during which the judge was changed because he did not fit the needs of the prosecutors and much of Saddam's defense team was killed because they were not provided adequate security. In the end he was convicted for crushing the rebellion in some town in 1982 even though his crimes were much greater - Halabja, Al Anfal campaign, war crimes against Iran, torture and executions that he presided over, his early years as President when he ordered loads of political opponents executed just because, etc. As a result he laughed at his executioners seconds from death when he had a noose around his neck, for praising Muqtada Al-Sadr, instead of being proven guilty of all the shit he did and not a court that was basically a kangaroo circus.

I don't think it's very significant, as there have been many people of this sort who have been overthrown but not executed - Jean-Bedel Bokassa, Mobutu, Hosni Mubarak (essentially responsible for the deaths of over 900 people at Tahrir Square) to name a few.

"Bleh, i don't even know what i'm arguing for. What a stupid rant. Disregard what i wrote." - Loz"Every time is gyros time" - Stalinista

The point of executing the Ceausescus in the eyes of the National Salvation Front was that it would end the violence occurring between the military, Securitate and the protestors.

Was it an indefinite decision to execute them then? They were both asked during trial if either of them were mentally ill and if so they would be excused of the offenses.

Quote:

I don't think it's very significant, as there have been many people of this sort who have been overthrown but not executed - Jean-Bedel Bokassa, Mobutu, Hosni Mubarak (essentially responsible for the deaths of over 900 people at Tahrir Square) to name a few.

Then do you believe that if any other Eastern Bloc leader had refused to give up power as Ceausescu did, he would be subject to the same mock trial and execution?

We have beaten you to the moon, but you have beaten us in sausage making.- Nikita Khrushchev

It was a kangaroo court with no actual legitimacy, the lawyer was on the side of the prosecution, agreeing with dumb charges like "genocide of the Romanian people" and saying that pleading insane would spare them the death penalty, not remove guilt. During the trial Ceausescu basically said over and over that the court had no legitimacy, which technically was true, but it didn't matter because the "court" was judge, prosecutor, defense attorney and executioner.

I doubt that refusing to step down would have been an issue, as in the other Warsaw Pact states, the socialist government was brought down through the party, where the leader was voted out and some crappier moderate was voted in for a few months until the regime changed to whatever it is now. I think Honecker faced some charges for people killed by border guards, but went to Moscow, and Jaruzelski was faced with some questions regarding the martial law during the conservative witch hunts in Poland a few years ago, but that didn't really go anywhere either.

The difference with Romania is that it was a pretty hardcore dictatorship where Ceausescu had a Kim Il-Sung-level personality cult and there was no visible alternative to the leader within the regime, which is why to destroy the old regime, the new regime had to, among other things, kill its leader. Same thing with Gaddafi. Iraq is a slightly different case because there actually was a weak attempt to make the trial look legit, and its goal was similar to that of the people who killed Ceausescu and Gaddafi, which is, to make the forces still supporting them give up because without the leader there is no state. However, nobody among the insurgents really cared about Saddam by 2007, so it had no impact other than neocons and Shi'a Islamists patting themselves on the back.

"Bleh, i don't even know what i'm arguing for. What a stupid rant. Disregard what i wrote." - Loz"Every time is gyros time" - Stalinista

Only the mediocre can be made to believe that the killing of the Ceausescus were justified especially in these trying times when 50% of the population of the former Yugoslavian republic under Tito are demonstrating against the ruling elite and especially that former communist countries turned capitalist are reverting to their former. Jumping too much on the bandwagon caused one of its wheels to crack!

Mr. Kirov, I like Bashar too and I also trust in him if you are really serious with your signature poster. But if some member of Muslim Brotherhood sees this and identifies me, surely I am going to be another victim either of vilification or harassment. Look, man, Bashar got elected. Opposition lost. What more do they like. They were given chances to run but since the Assads were popular since time immemorial, winning in the polls is expected.

The murder of the Ceausescus was a kangaroo court orchestrated by Ceausescu's own former henchmen, some of them having fallen out of grace earlier. They saw which way the wind was blowing, so they made a cynical grab for power against their former boss, and succeeded. Among many other advantages, killing Ceausescu made sure that a lot of his knowledge about the complicity of other members of the government would remain unknown. Same with Gaddafi. The new rulers would later send in miners to disperse new protests against them, and allow CIA torture centres in their airport.

The Romanian "revolution" is remarkable when you look at all the blurred lines. Like, say, the different military units shooting at each other at the airport, apparently all looking for "loyalists". Or the firefights against phantom "terrorists" that went on for days after the disappearance of Caeusescu, when in fact the vast majority of the deaths in the "revolution" occurred, before suddenly falling silent.

In what way did that kangaroo court differentiate from any other revolutionary court in the 20th century?Let me tell you - they measured the blood pressure of the defendant before executing him, that was the only difference.